How digital reform could rescue the county courts

The county court is in crisis and people cannot access services. It is recognised by government  that there is a need to enable the civil court system to meet the demands of modern society. The situation is exemplified by the data. MoJ statistics show that because of delays and backlogs it still takes most of a year between making a claim to getting to a court hearing. 

Digital technology is being deployed at a slow pace to supplement or replace court processes. The advantages of this must be carefully balanced alongside ethical considerations, transparency, accuracy and most importantly, protection for vulnerable court users. I argue that within these parameters it is important to think as creatively as possible about how we develop routes to help people resolve their disputes and access support and assistance to do so. 

There is much political and judicial support for the idea of streamlining justice and digitalising court procedures, especially to increase access to justice in low value cases. This was also the subject of our recent report, earlier this year, for the Civil Justice Council on digital disadvantage. We found that it is not only accessibility of digital tools that is at issue but also it is an understanding of how justice itself works that perplexes most people wanting to bring a small claim.

In the private sector, innovative systems such as Garfield AI, the first AI firm to be authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), demonstrates how to think creatively about pre-action help and support for litigants. For low value cases and small claims, services such as online mediation, or automated forms and other forms of self-help can help people to achieve resolution before their case gets in front of a judge. 

We should be open to greater levels of innovation and, with appropriate safeguards, be prepared to implement new ideas that enable those with a low value claim who cannot afford any sort of legal help access the legal system. There are international examples of small changes with the possibility of making a large difference. For example, from November 2025 individuals who represent themselves before the Singapore Small Claims Tribunal will be able to use an AI tool to help summarise the arguments being put forward in their case and help them to better prepare for trial. The focus is on providing information rather than advice. 

The Singapore Judiciary has a longstanding formal relationship with Harvey.AI to explore how generative AI can increase access to justice. Earlier this year a translation tool was introduced which litigants could easily access from a QR code embedded in court documents to help them to understand the paperwork and documents required for their case. The AI tools come with precautions and warnings around accuracy which the user must consent to before accessing. 

This is an example of a public-private relationship between the court and a private provider, of the sort described by the Online Procedural Rules Committee (OPRC), in their public engagement on a pre-action model for the Digital Justice System, published earlier this summer. The OPRC, a statutory rule-making body, was established under the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 and the intention is for it to modernise and simplify the rules governing the practice and procedure of online proceedings across civil, family and tribunal jurisdictions. The consultation underpins a vision of an integrated pre-action advice and dispute resolution service, available on a variety of portals and platforms, giving the user a seamless journey through the Digital Justice System. 

The role of the OPRC is to create and set standards so that there is public trust and confidence that services included are compliant. This is really important because currently our system offers a ‘confusing patchwork of provision’. Working with a variety of organisations in the public, private and not-for-profit sectors and offering strong and effective oversight of how these systems operate from a consumer perspective, so that we can encourage innovative and new ways of working that are simple, fast, efficient and cost-effective is desirable. 

As a profession and as a community, we should be brave and bold enough to take the opportunity to innovate. We should be evaluating and monitoring data on innovative digital tools, especially how they are used in practice by individuals using court processes. If a short summary and a translation tool, such as in the Singaporean example described above, allows the system to be more accessible, it is because it is prioritising public legal education through the user journey and consequently bringing our court system closer to the people who use it.